Setting Up a Collective Bargaining Mechanism in China. chinafocus. 22 m a y by Rachel Zhang Must an employer set up a labour

Transcription

1 chinafocus Setting Up a Collective Bargaining Mechanism in China by Rachel Zhang Must an employer set up a labour union ( Union ) for its Chinese employees? If no Union has been established, how shall the company conduct a collective bargaining with its employees? Is an employer obliged to comply with any collective bargaining mechanism under the PRC law? What requirements must an employer comply with to ensure the result of collective bargaining is enforceable? Recently, a new round of legislation related to collective bargaining has been introduced in and around the coastal area of China, bringing with it a new development in Chinese industrial relations: the employee representative conference (ERC). This mechanism amounts to an official response to industrial action by the government, but the issue is far from closed. The industrial relations climate remains active, and knowing how to react to the new mechanism requires an understanding of 22 m a y

2 chinafocus the newest developments while looking closely at the regulations of different regions. A climate of rising wages and rising action In recent months, more Chinese employees have sought, and been met with, rises in pay. The industrial action taken at the factories of Foxconn in Shenzhen and Honda in Guangzhou last year ended with each of those companies giving a pay rise to their employees. Last year, 30 provinces/municipalities in China increased their various minimum wage standards (MWSs). The increase was in the region of up to 10 per cent, and even 25 per cent in some cases. From the beginning of 2011, the MWSs in some cities of China were increased again. For example, the MWS in Shanghai was adjusted to 1,280 yuan per month (effective from 1 April 2011), an increase of more than 14 per cent. On 21 March 2011, employees of China Unicom (a Chinese state-owned telecommunication operator) in Shanxi Xinzhou went on strike citing heavy work load and low pay. On 23 March 2011, employees of Carrefour in Shanghai (a French-invested chain supermarket) successfully held their first employee representative conference, during which they concluded their first draft collective contract on the increase of salary and benefits. Unlike the employees in the Honda strikes (who elected their own representatives without Union involvement and directly discussed their requests with their employer), Carrefour employees conducted collective bargaining with their employer through the Union. Although the negotiations took about three years, during this period the Carrefour employees did not go on strike. It can be seen that MWSs are on the increase. Anecdotally, employees appear to be taking industrial action and measures to try to increase their wages; or at least it would appear there is more media attention drawn to the issue. It would also appear that employees are using mechanisms such as collective contracts to achieve better pay and benefits. Legislative changes On 13 August 2010, the draft Collective Bargaining Rules of Shenzhen Special Economic Zone ( Draft Shenzhen Rules ) were issued for discussion. On 26 August 2010, the third draft of Guangdong Enterprises Democratic Management Rules ( Draft Guangdong Rules ) were issued for discussion. On 23 December 2010, the Shanghai Employee Representatives Conference Rules ( Shanghai ERC Rules ) were officially issued, and the Shanghai ERC Rules will come into force from 1 May It can be seen that the PRC Government intends to have employers set up some mechanisms to effectively deal with industrial relations. These new rules provide details (eg required procedures) as to how specifically some of these mechanisms should be established. The ERC is one such mechanism, which, in essence, requires employees to elect their own representatives to attend conferences (generally held once per year) during which issues such as concluding collective negotiations over pay can be discussed. While the ERC is not in session, the representatives will be required to follow up on issues raised at the conference and be available to discuss any unexpected issues on behalf of all employees. Actual application of ERCs varies by jurisdiction. The ERC mechanism described in the Draft Guangdong Rules is generally the same as the format outlined above. However, the Shanghai ERC Rules directly grant the power of the employee representatives to the Union, which means that while the ERC is not in session, the Union (instead of the employee representatives) shall follow up on issues raised at the conference and will bear the responsibility of representing all employees should any unexpected issues require discussion. In addition, the Draft Guangdong Rules (as well as the Draft Shenzhen Rules) encourage various means of communication (including through the ERC mechanism) between employers and employees for the purpose of promoting democratic management practices, but the Shanghai ERC Rules only focus on the establishment of ERC mechanism and are silent as to other mechanisms. Moreover, the relevant new rules provide that the employer shall set up an ERC mechanism or collective bargaining mechanism to deal with issues such as pay rises. The word shall can be read as either mandatory or permissive. So far, there is no authorised interpretation of this issue published and so it is uncertain whether an employer must set up an ERC mechanism. The rules do not specify whether an employer is obliged to set up a Union in order to then establish an ERC mechanism. The rules are also silent on whether, if it is not obligatory to establish an ERC mechanism, the employer must set up an alternative mechanism for collective bargaining or other democratic management purposes, and what m a y

3 chinafocus procedures would be applied in respect of such an other mechanism. It remains to be seen how the Government will apply these new rules. Measures employers can take With employees seemingly more aware of their legal entitlements for collective action, and perhaps more prepared to take action, employers may face more pressure to engage in collective bargaining with their employees (or face industrial action by the employees) than before. Many companies that have never considered the issue in depth must now decide whether and how to set up an industrial relations programme capable of handling their employees collective concerns. Below are some options employers may take into consideration. (a) Setting up the ERC mechanism Following the relevant local regulations to set up the officially sanctioned ERC mechanism makes most sense for employers who already have a Union capable of industrial action. The Union provides a mechanism through which the employer can have a discussion with their employees in the event of industrial action, and the ERC provides a good framework for dealing with an established Union. However, employers that do not yet have any Union established may encounter issues in setting up the locallymandated ERC, especially in localities where local rules specifically empower the Union (as opposed to other employee representatives) to attend to the ERC responsibilities, like Shanghai. As mentioned under above, some local rules require the Union to attend to the ERC duties, and therefore establishing an ERC would also presuppose establishing a Union. However, under the PRC Union Law, an employer is not obliged to set up any Union for its employees. The Union Law is a national law and legally speaking, it will prevail in case of any discrepancy between it and the local rules. Even if an employer has an ERC mechanism, whether it would reduce the likelihood of industrial action depends very much on how closely the relevant players support and adhere to it. There is scope for an employee or a group of employees to try to do their own thing (and for example contend that he/she is not a union member and do not therefore recognise the ERC mechanism, like the Honda strikes). The relevant rules are silent on these types of issues. In other words, an ERC that is not fully supported by employees could easily find itself outside the framework of collective bargaining. (b) Setting up a mechanism other than an ERC Some local rules (such as the Draft Guangdong Rules) encourage employers to apply various measures like employeremployee discussion forums to inject democratic management into their organisation. This appears to be an option for employers who do not currently have a Union established in their workplace. As the law is unclear on establishing mechanisms other than an ERC, adopting this option is not without its risks and hurdles. For example, it is unclear whether an employer can unilaterally impose the procedures or if the consent of the employees would be required. In addition, employers in Shanghai may be exposed to several legal consequences if they are considering an alternative to establishing an ERC. Under the Shanghai ERC Rules, the Shanghai local labour unions are entitled to supervise an employer s establishment of an ERC mechanism and can request the employer to rectify issues which it considers to be in breach of the Shanghai ERC Rules. If the employer fails to rectify as requested, the local union can request an investigation by the local labour authority. However, the Shanghai ERC Rules do not provide what specific penalty will be imposed if the employer is considered to have breached the ERC Rules after the investigation. This leaves more uncertainties for employers choosing to adopt an alternative mechanism to an ERC, as any alternative could incur an investigation, the results of which remain uncertain. (c) Waiting for further legal clarification It is worth noting that the Draft Shenzhen Rules and Draft Guangdong Rules focus on regulating the activities of the employers and employees during industrial actions, and prohibits some activities (eg intentional delay of negotiation, work stoppage or other drastic activities). Under the Draft Shenzhen Rules, should employees breach such prohibitions by, for example, stopping work, the labour authority can order rectification. If the employees refuse to rectify the situation, or their activities lead to serious consequences, the employer 24 m a y

4 chinafocus can unilaterally cease the collective bargaining and terminate the employment of such employees without any economic compensation payable. In these extreme cases, the employees are also liable to compensate the employer for any economic loss or personal injury caused by their activities. (As of publication this matter remains hotly contested. Currently, and that this is the third version of the Draft Guangdong Rules since it was firstly submitted for review on 29 July 2008.) This being the case, employers in Guangdong can likely rely on the rules outlined above to effectively regulate the employees activities in their industrial actions, even if no standing mechanism is established for collective bargaining. Of course, the Draft Shenzhen Rules and Draft Guangdong Rules are still drafts and subject to further discussion. So one option may be to wait to see if the legislation authority will further clarify the rules. Conclusion Whether to set up an ERC mechanism (with or without the Union involved) or some other mechanism generally depends on: i) legal requirements; and ii) whether such mechanism can effectively help employers deal with employees industrial actions. As the applicable law is unclear in some parts, including as to if and what a mechanism must be established for the purpose of collective bargaining, one option for employers may be to refrain from proceeding in haste and perhaps wait until further legal clarification is available. Rachel Zhang Associate JSM Shanghai Representative Office Hong Kong m a y

5 中國焦點 在中國建立 集體協商機制 張曉坤 僱主要為中國員工建立工會嗎? 如果沒有工會, 公司如何與員工進行集體協商? 根據中國法律, 僱主必須建立任何集體協商機制嗎? 僱主必須遵守何種規範, 以確保執行集體協商的結果? 最近, 新一輪有關集體協商的立法在中國沿海地區展開, 隨之帶來了中國勞資關係的新發展 : 職工代表大會 ( 職代會 ) 機制 該項機制是政府針對工業行動的應對措施, 但是問題還遠未解決 在勞資關係不穩定的情況下, 密切關注最新發展動態, 細心觀察不同地區的法規, 才 能瞭解如何應對這種新機制 漲薪潮和勞工運動潮最近幾個月, 更多中國員工要求且成功獲得加薪 去年在深圳富士康和廣州本田多個工廠發生的工業行動均以員工加薪告終 去年, 中國 30 個省和直轄市提高了當地的最低工資標準 ( 最低工資 ), 增幅達 10%, 在某些地區甚至達到 25% 2011 年伊始, 中國一些城市的最低工資再次調高 例如, 自 2011 年 4 月 1 日起, 上海的最低月薪調整至人民幣 1,280 元, 增幅超過 14% 2011 年 3 月 21 日, 中國聯通 ( 一家國有電信營運商 ) 在山西忻州的員工以工作量沉重但工資低為理由罷工 2011 年 3 月 23 日, 上海家樂福 ( 一家法資連鎖超市 ) 的員工成功舉行了他們第一屆職代會, 會上通過了他們第一份有關增加工資和福利的集體合同草案 跟本田罷工事件的員工不一樣 ( 他們在沒有工會參與的情況下選出了自己的代表並直接與僱主談判 ), 家樂福員工通過工會與他們的僱主進行集體協商 雖然這次協商延續了大約三年, 在此期間家樂福員工並沒有進行罷工 26 m a y

6 中國焦點 可以看到的是, 最低工資在不斷調高 從個別事件看來, 員工似乎開始通過工業行動和手段爭取加薪 ; 而媒體對此類事件的關注似乎較前強烈 還有, 看來員工亦通過集體合同等機制, 爭取更佳收入和福利 立法方面的變更 2010 年 8 月 13 日, 深圳經濟特區集體協商條例 ( 修改草案徵求意見稿 ) ( 深圳草案 ) 公佈以作討論 2010 年 8 月 26 日, 廣東省企業民主管理條例( 草案修改三稿徵求意見稿 ) ( 廣東草案 ) 公佈以作討論 2010 年 12 月 23 日, 上海市職工代表大會條例 ( 上海職代會條例 ) 正式公佈, 並將於 2011 年 5 月 1 日起實施 看來, 中國政府希望僱主建立某種機制, 以便有效處理勞資關係問題 這些新條例為其中某些機制建立的方法 ( 例如必要的程序 ) 提供詳細資料 機制之一是職代會, 其目的是要求員工選舉自己的代表參加會議 ( 一般每年舉行一次 ), 在會上對諸如工資集體協商等問題進行討論 在職代會閉會期間, 代表們必須對會上提出的課題予以跟進, 並可以 代表所有員工就任何突發事項進行協商 職代會機制的具體運作因地而異 廣東草案 規定的職代會機制與以上闡述的形式大致相同 但是, 上海職代會條例 直接將職工代表的權力授予工會, 亦即在職代會閉會期間, 工會 ( 而非職工代表 ) 將跟進會上提出的事項, 並且在有突發事項需要協商時肩負代表所有員工的職責 另外, 廣東草案 ( 以及 深圳草案 ) 鼓勵僱主與員工採取各種方式溝通 ( 包括通過職代會機制 ) 以實現民主管理, 但是 上海職代會條例 僅關注職代會機制的建立, 對其他機制隻字未提 m a y

7 中國焦點 此外, 相關新規定提出僱主 應當 建立職代會機制或集體協商機制, 處理加薪等問題 應當 一詞可被解讀為具有強制性含義, 也可被解讀為具有容許性含義 到現在為止, 就此問題並無官方解釋, 因此仍然不能確定僱主是否 必須 建立職代會機制 相關規定並未明確指出僱主是否必須建立工會以便建立職代會機制 此外, 相關規定也沒有說明若職代會機制並非必須, 僱主是否必須另行建立機制, 以便進行集體協商或民主管理, 以及應通過何等程序建立該等替代性機制 政府將如何施行這些新規定仍有待觀察 中國 工會法, 僱主並無義務為其員工建立工會 工會法 是全國性法律 ; 從法律角度來看, 工會法 若與地方法規有所抵觸, 應當以 工會法 為依歸 即使僱主建立了職代會機制, 該機制是否能減少工業行動, 很大程度上取決於相關各方對該機制的支持和遵循程度 個別員工或一群員工仍有可能試圖我行我素 ( 例如說自己非工會會員, 因此不承認職代會機制, 就像本田罷工事件那樣 ) 相關法規對此類問題並未予以解釋 換言之, 一個未能獲得全部員工支持的職代會很可能對集體協商無能為力 僱主可採取的對策看來員工較明白本身可採取集體行動的法定權利, 同時亦似乎更願意採取行動, 在這種情形下僱主與員工進行集體協商 ( 或面對員工的工業行動 ) 時, 會面臨比以往更大的壓力 許多從未深入考慮這個問題的公司, 現在必須決定是否以及如何建立勞資關係體系, 以便處理員工集體關注的問題 以下是可供僱主考慮的選擇 (a) 建立職代會機制 如僱主已設有足以處理工業行動的工會, 那麼, 根據相關地方法規建立官方認可的職代會機制最為順理成章 發生工業行動時, 僱主可以通過工會提供的機制與員工談判, 職代會機制為現有工會提供了一個很好的框架 但是, 僱主還沒有建立工會的話, 依照當地要求建立職代會時, 可能會遇到一些問題, 尤其是在一些當地法規明確授權工會 ( 而非其他職工代表 ) 代行職代會職責的地方, 例如上海 如上所述, 某些地方法規要求工會代行職代會職權, 因此建立職代會前似乎必須建立工會 但是, 根據 (b) 建立職代會以外的機制有些地方法規 ( 例如 廣東草案 ) 鼓勵僱主採取多種方式 ( 例如勞資座談會 ) 進行企業民主管理 對那些在工作地點還未建立工會的僱主來說, 這似乎提供了另外一種選擇 關於建立職代會以外其他機制的規定, 法律上仍不明確, 因此採取這種方式可能面對風險和困難 例如, 相關程序是否可以由僱主單方面決定, 或者必須經員工同意? 這一點就未有明確的答案 此外, 上海的僱主若考慮建立職代會以外的方式, 可能面臨一些法律後果 根據 上海職代會條例, 上海的工會有權監督僱主建立職代會機制, 並有權要求僱主糾正工會認為違反 上海職代會條例 的行為 若僱主不按要求糾正, 工會可以要求當地政府的勞工部門介入調查 不過, 若僱主經調查後被認定違法, 上海職代會條例 並未說明僱主會受到何種具體處罰 這樣, 選擇建立職代會以外機制的僱主, 將面對更不明朗的情況, 因為任何替代機制都可能招致調查, 而且後果如何, 並不明確 28 m a y

8 中國焦點 (c) 靜觀其變有一點值得注意, 深圳草案 和 廣東草案 著重規範發生工業行動時僱主和員工的行為, 並且明令禁止一些行為 ( 例如故意拖延談判 停工或其他過激行為 ) 根據 深圳草案, 若員工違反這些禁令, 例如停工, 勞動部門可責令改正 若員工拒不改正或有關行為造成嚴重後果, 僱主可以單方面中止集體協商, 並解除與該等員工簽訂的僱用合同且無需支付任何經濟補償 在極端情形下, 員工若構成僱主經濟損失或人身傷害, 必須負責賠償 [ 直至本文刊出時, 這項議題仍屬激烈討論事項 自 2008 年 7 月 29 日首次提交審議至今, 廣東草案 已經是第三稿 ] 有鑒於此, 即使並未建立任何集體協商機制, 廣東的僱主或可憑藉上述規定有效地規範員工的工業行動 然而, 深圳草案 和 廣東草案 仍屬草擬階段, 內容有待進一步討論 所以, 也許僱主可以選擇靜觀其變, 看立法機構是否會對相關規定作進一步澄清 總結是否建立職代會機制 ( 不論是否有工會介入 ) 或其他機制, 一般取決於 :i) 法律規定 ; 以及 ii) 相關機制是否能有效幫助僱主解決員工的工業行動 由於相關法規在某些問題上尚未明確, 包括集體協商機制是否必須建立, 以及何種協商機制獲認可, 僱主可以考慮不要草率行動, 靜待法律規定進一步清楚闡明 註 : 此乃中文譯本, 一切內容以英文版本為準 張曉坤孖士打律師行上海代表處, 香港律師 m a y